I do agree that it would be better for everyone to release it underGPL and I have already expressed that to our customer.

At this point I feel that we have two possibilities, help our customerviolate GPL or say no to the project. I'd prefer a third option whereI could tell the customer that we can setup the project in a certainway (some "cleanroom" setup ?) to ensure that the results can not beconsidered derived work.

Is your short answer also the definite answer considering this ?

/Fredrik

2008/11/18 Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>:> Fredrik Markström wrote:>>>> Linus, others...>>>> I'm working for as a consultant for a large hardware company porting>> Linux to their new cpu-architecture and everything is pretty much>> up and running. Now they want us to develop a closed-source (to>> protect their IP) ethernet driver for their proprietary Ethernet MAC.>>>> My question is: Is there a fair way to do this and still comply to>> the intent and spirit of the Linux licensing ?>>>> If yes, how ?>> In a word, I would say: no.>> When developing a non-GPL kernel driver, one finds themselves on very shaky> legal ground. Unless one is 100% sure their code is not legally considered a> derived work from the kernel, it's likely a GPL violation.>> One could point out the pile of other Ethernet drivers in the kernel from> the likes of Intel, Broadcom, etc. and ask why those companies did not feel> the need to "protect their IP" in this manner.. as well as the significant> advantages of having their driver in the mainline kernel, and the horrible> disadvantages of trying to manage closed-source drivers..>--To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/